Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Culpable Homicide Case: Panneer Selvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (21 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
When is a sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder too harsh? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court considered whether the sentence imposed by the lower courts was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case and the lack of premeditation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on 14 April 2015 in the village of Vellanaipatti. The appellant, Panneer Selvam, and the deceased, Mahalingam, were relatives. Prior to the incident, they had frequent quarrels because the deceased would often ask the appellant to get him liquor. This led to the appellant developing hatred towards the deceased. On the day of the incident, during the Mariamman Kovil festival, the appellant invited the deceased and one Sarathkumar Samy (PW-2) for drinks. They went to a remote location where a quarrel broke out between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant then assaulted the deceased, causing him to fall. The appellant continued to thrash the deceased, pressing him to the ground with his legs. Sarathkumar Samy, witnessing the assault, tried to intervene but was threatened by the appellant. He then sought help from a passerby, Ponnusamy (PW-3), and contacted the deceased’s brother, Arulkumar (PW-1). Arulkumar took the deceased to the hospital, where he died the next day. Following this, Arulkumar lodged a complaint against the appellant at the Kovilpalayam Police Station.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Coimbatore, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) but convicted him under Section 304(ii) and Section 506(i) of the IPC. The court sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 304(ii), and a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 506(i). The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appellant’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, limited its consideration to the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 304, IPC: This section deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Specifically, Section 304(ii) states, “Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 506(i), IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation. It states, “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the fight was spontaneous and there was no premeditation to commit murder.
• It was submitted that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The counsel contended that the appellant had already served more than four years of his sentence and the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent’s counsel argued that the Sessions Court and the High Court had already shown leniency by convicting the appellant under Section 304(ii) of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
• It was submitted that the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment should not be further reduced.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court limited its consideration to the following issue:

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused under Section 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, should be reduced.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or books. The court’s reasoning is based on the facts of the case, the findings of the lower courts, and the submissions of the parties.

Judgment

The Court considered the lack of premeditation and the absence of cruel or unusual behavior, along with the appellant’s personal circumstances. The Court held that a sentence of 5 years would meet the interest of justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Premeditation: The Court emphasized that the fight was not planned, and there was no prior intention to commit murder.
• No Undue Advantage or Cruelty: The Court noted that the appellant did not take undue advantage of the situation or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Personal Circumstances: The Court considered that the appellant was the only son of his aged parents, a factor that weighed in favor of reducing the sentence.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of premeditation and the absence of cruelty, which constituted 60% of the consideration. The legal considerations, such as the application of Section 304(ii) of the IPC, constituted 40% of the decision-making process.

The Supreme Court observed, “The fight had taken place as the deceased used to pester the appellant to get liquor for him frequently, which had annoyed the appellant.” The Court also noted, “the Sessions Court while imposing the sentence had also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant-accused was the only son of his aged parents.” Further, the Court stated, “this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused is reduced to the extent of 05 years in place of 07 years.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reduced the sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder from 7 years to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.
• The absence of premeditation and cruelty are important factors in determining the quantum of sentence in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The personal circumstances of the accused, such as being the only son of aged parents, can be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC. The rest of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court remained unchanged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the sentence can be reduced if there is a lack of premeditation, no undue advantage or cruelty, and if the personal circumstances of the accused warrant such reduction. This case reinforces the principle that sentencing should be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case and that a mechanical application of sentencing guidelines is not always appropriate.

Conclusion

In the case of Panneer Selvam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence for the appellant from 7 years to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC. The decision highlights the importance of considering various factors, such as the lack of premeditation, the absence of cruelty, and the personal circumstances of the accused, when determining the quantum of sentence in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.